5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
As Gas Prices Surge Back to $4 a Gallon, Poll Shows Americans Blame Trump for Worsening Economy
Forty-seven percent of Americans surveyed say they have been cutting back on food and medical care to save money.
Jul 17, 2026
As the resumption of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran sends gas prices back to an average of $4 per gallon, a poll released by CNBC on Friday shows Americans' perceptions of the US economy growing increasingly negative.
The latest CNBC All-America Economic Survey finds that 61% of Americans are feeling pessimistic about the current state of the economy, with just 25% saying they feel optimistic.
This marks the most pessimistic Americans have felt about the economy since December 2023, after the US suffered through an inflationary shock primarily driven by the re-opening of the global economy after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Americans' biggest concerns are with the cost of living, with voters expressing particular worry about gas and grocery prices.
Forty-seven percent of Americans surveyed say they have been cutting back on food and medical care to save money, while two-thirds report reducing spending on "non-essential" purchases, such as restaurant meals and entertainment.
The survey also finds that US voters are pinning the blame for the state of the economy squarely on Trump, as just 38% of Americans approve of his economic performance while 60% disapprove. Americans are even harsher in their assessment of Trump's handling of the Iran war, with just 35% approving and 63% disapproving.
Democratic pollster Jay Campbell, a partner at Hart Research, told CNBC that the recent drop in gas prices from their peak earlier this year is not enough to put Americans in a better mood, especially given that prices are headed up again.
"People are still paying a lot more for stuff than they were a year and a half ago, two years ago, and that’s recent enough in memory that it still hurts and it still drives a lot of anger," said Campbell. “When gas prices drop 50 cents for a month, that’s just not enough to make up the difference."
According to data published by AAA on Friday, the average price of gas in the US is now $3.98 per gallon, 10 cents higher than it was a week before.
The price of diesel fuel has also risen back over $5 per gallon, up 15 cents from one week ago, according to AAA.
Despite Trump's brutal polling numbers, the CNBC survey finds that Democrats currently have a modest four-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot, which Campbell said "doesn’t point to a wave [election] at the moment."
Keep Reading
Show Less
With No Sense of Irony, Trump Rep Calls Teleprompter Operator's Alleged Insider Trading on Speeches a 'Disgrace'
"Public Citizen again calls on the CFTC to wake up and do its job of overseeing the prediction market industry and enforcing the insider trading laws," said the watchdog's government affairs lobbyist.
Jul 16, 2026
As Kalshi confirmed Thursday that it referred a White House teleprompter operator to federal regulators for flagged bets on its prediction market, President Donald Trump's press secretary denounced the suspended staffer's reported actions—without addressing any of the mounting outrage over how her boss has cashed in on his return to the Oval Office.
Citing unnamed sources, ABC News reported that Gabriel Perez, who has been one of Trump's teleprompter operators since his first presidential campaign, is in talks with federal regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "to settle allegations he used his inside knowledge of the president's speeches to win more than $100,000."
"Of all Trump's closest aides, sources say Perez typically has the final eyes on nearly all of the president's prepared remarks—and is often known to take last-minute edits from Trump himself," the outlet detailed. Federal investigators reportedly found that Perez bet on words or topics mentioned by Trump in more than a dozen speeches.
While the CFTC declined to comment, Robert DeNault, Kalshi's head of enforcement, told multiple media outlets that "our surveillance team promptly flagged and referred these trades to the CFTC after an exchange investigation. We have been assisting regulators on this matter and provided evidence we collected, as we do in any referral."
Asked about the insider trading allegations on Thursday—just hours before Trump was set to deliver a prime-time address on election security—White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Perez has been put on unpaid administrative leave, at the direction of the president himself, and called his reported behavior a "disgrace."
"The White House has extremely strict ethical guidelines with respect to issues like this," Leavitt also claimed.
As National Public Radio detailed Thursday:
In March, White House staff received a memo warning against using nonpublic government information to place bets on Kalshi and its biggest competitor, Polymarket.
The memo, which was reviewed by NPR, stated that it is a criminal offense for anyone inside the White House to "buy" or "sell" on the sites. Prediction markets offer "yes" or "no" contracts that change in price based on the speculation of bettors. Aides in the White House were told in the memo that misusing government information "is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated."
The US Department of Justice this year has charged at least two people for their use of Polymarket: US Army special forces soldier who allegedly gambled on the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and a Google software engineer accused of using internal company information to place bets; they've both pleaded not guilty.
However, in the case of Perez, "the CFTC alerted federal prosecutors in Manhattan, who declined to open a criminal investigation," according to ABC News. Instead, he's discussing a potential settlement that would require him "to give back his profits and refrain from making similar trades."
Responding to the reporting in a Thursday statement, Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the watchdog group Public Citizen, noted that "betting on political events on the prediction markets has become highly profitable for a small handful of anonymous bettors."
"Ever since the American invasion of Venezuela and Iran, a few people have been placing very large bets moments before the events take place, and scoring millions in profits," he emphasized. "The timing and accuracy of these bets strongly suggest insider trading, probably by a few individuals in the know within the Trump administration."
The reported behavior by Perez "is further evidence of illegal insider trading on the prediction markets—an industry that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has let operate like the Wild West," Holman continued. "Public Citizen again calls on the CFTC to wake up and do its job of overseeing the prediction market industry and enforcing the insider trading laws."
The New York Times reported in May that the Trump administration has stacked CFTC with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers interested in providing oversight on prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi.
Meanwhile, according to recently unveiled annual financial disclosures, Trump made an unprecedented $2.2 billion—more than half of it from his family's cryptocurrency exploits—during his first year back in the White House.
Based on those disclosures, Trump may have finally "crossed a line that even the presidency cannot erase, violating the nation's insider trading laws," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who helped write those laws—highlighted in a Wednesday blog post.
Trump—who infamously bankrupted multiple Atlantic City casinos—also has plans to get into prediction markets. His social media company, Trump Media and Technology Group, said last October that it would soon launch a prediction betting marketplace on Truth Social.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Diesel Hits $5 Per Gallon in US, 33% Higher Than Before Trump Launched War Against Iran
The latest supply crunch comes at a time when "US gasoline inventories have become critically low," said one analyst.
Jul 16, 2026
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent the price of oil back up, leading to a corresponding rise in the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Data published by AAA on Thursday showed that the average price of diesel in the US is once again over $5 per gallon, which is 33% higher than the average price of diesel before Trump unlawfully attacked Iran without congressional authorization in February.
Oil industry analyst Patrick De Haan wrote in a Thursday social media post that diesel fuel powers "the trucks that move nearly everything you buy—groceries, goods, supplies," meaning the current spike will lead to "higher prices down the line" for other key goods.
According to a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal, the rise in diesel prices is unlikely to be short-lived given that there are now multiple factors pushing costs higher.
In addition to the resumption of the Iran war, the Journal writes, Russia has now banned diesel exports after its refineries came under attack by Ukraine. And in the US, domestic stockpiles of the fuel have now fallen to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Given all these factors, analysts told the Journal that diesel prices "could soon climb an additional 20 to 25 cents a gallon."
An analysis published on Thursday by CNN Business senior reporter David Goldman pointed to another factor pushing diesel prices higher: Global refining capacities have taken a significant hit since the start of the Iran war.
Goldman noted that Iran has "damaged or destroyed 30 Middle Eastern refineries" since the start of the conflict, causing global refinery output to fall by "3 million barrels at the peak of the Strait of Hormuz disruption, and 2.1 million barrels of refining capacity remain offline."
Energy analyst John Kemp said on Thursday that the diesel supply crunch will likely spill over to the price of regular gasoline in the coming weeks.
"US gasoline inventories have become critically low," Kemp explained in a social media post, "as domestic refiners prioritize production of jet fuel and diesel to replace global supplies hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Ukraine's escalating attacks on Russia's refineries."
Kemp added that the US gasoline stocks "have depleted in 13 of the last 16 weeks by a total of 43 million barrels" since the start of the war, making it "by far the largest [depletion] on record for the time of year, and three times faster than average over the last decade."
In an interview with Bloomberg published on Wednesday, International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol warned that renewed fighting between the US and Iran was again threatening to create a global fuel supply crisis that could come in "not months" but "weeks."
"If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed," Birol said, "we may again have some difficulty for global economies, including those in the region and developing nations and Asia."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Analysis Warns 'The Wealthiest' Will Benefit If Missouri Passes Dark Money-Backed Amendment 5
While Missouri's 1% would get major tax breaks, one tax policy expert said, "working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Jul 15, 2026
Tax policy experts warned Tuesday that passing Amendment 5 in Missouri next month could lead to middle-income residents paying hundreds of dollars more each year as wealthy households enjoy a tax cut worth tens of thousands.
If approved by voters on August 4, the legislatively referred constitutional amendment would: reduce Missouri's individual income tax, based on revenue growth, until it is eliminated; prohibit future state individual income taxes; decrease personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase, but bar funding cuts to public schools; and limit expansions of sales and use taxes, unless they are used to lower income tax.
As The Kansas City Star detailed last week, Amendment 5 is a "top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe," and Missouri Promise PAC, the main campaign supporting it, received "$9.6 million from six organizations or groups that do not have to disclose their donors," also known as dark money.
While some of the campaign backers remain unknown to voters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington, DC aimed to shed light on the specifics of the amendment's anticipated impact with its new policy brief.
"Amendment 5 asks Missouri voters to approve a tax shift without telling them which purchases will be taxed or how high sales taxes will rise," said ITEP analyst and brief author Eli Byerly-Duke. "What is clear is who would benefit: the wealthiest Missourians. Working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Missouri's individual income tax "makes up about 64% of the state's general fund and is the major funding source for state investments in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services," the brief explains. "Low- and middle-income Missourians already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to fund public services," and swapping income taxes for higher sales taxes "would shift even more of this responsibility from the state's highest-income individuals to teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and other middle-income Missourians."
Specifically, Byerly-Duke found that "middle-class Missourians with incomes of about $50,000 to $80,000 will pay $535 more in taxes if the personal income tax is eliminated and the sales tax expanded," all while Missouri's top 1%—or those with incomes of $689,300 and above—see an average tax break of $39,978.
The brief also highlights that "neither the Missouri Legislature nor governor has explained exactly how they will expand sales taxes if it passes. They might increase the sales tax rate, or they might expand the sales tax to include purchases of services that are not currently taxed, such as home repair and insurance, car repair and financing, personal care services such as hair or nail care, or medical services. Taxing these items will cost middle-income households a larger share of their incomes than higher-income households, but middle-income families will not get a commensurate benefit from the income tax elimination."
"For senior citizens, active-duty military families, and military retirees, the impact would be even worse," the report continues. "That's because Social Security benefits, active-duty military pay, and military pensions are already exempt from Missouri income tax, so households for whom those are the sole source of income would get no benefit from Amendment 5. For a middle-class Missourian earning between $49,100 and $79,700, this would mean an increase of $1,600 in taxes every year. Overall, seniors alone would see a net tax increase of about $335 million and each pay $365 more, on average, each year."
The brief bolsters the case for voters to say "No on 5," as Protect MO Taxpayers encourages. The "no" campaign's website warns that the amendment "hits seniors, retirees, veterans, and disabled persons hardest. Those on tight fixed incomes may not pay income tax on their limited income, but they will certainly be hurt by higher sales taxes on goods they buy every day, such as groceries, medicine, and gas, and services they use every day, from haircuts to car repairs to healthcare and housing."
"Amendment 5 hits working families hardest of all, with higher sales and use taxes estimated by the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project to cost the average Missouri family about $500 more in taxes per year overall," Protect MO Taxpayers' site says, also pointing to concerns that it will "increase the tough economic times in rural Missouri" and "make the economic struggle even harder for small businesses."
The proposal "is a severe hit for renters who are already struggling to make ends meet," and "crushes the dreams of Missourians who want to buy or sell a home," the site adds. "Amendment 5 hits active-duty military, who do not pay state income tax but will face higher prices off the base with sales taxes that could roughly triple. This will mean less retail business and economic harm in our neighboring military host communities."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Contrary to Evidence, Trump Energy Secretary Says Data Centers Are Best Tool to 'Stop the Rise of Electricity Prices’
His comments came one day after the largest power grid in the US announced massive rate hikes and said the "primary driver of that growth is data centers."
Jul 15, 2026
After New York’s Democratic governor enacted a temporary ban on the construction of large data centers to curb their enormous power consumption, President Donald Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, made the evidence-free claim that the facilities are actually the “greatest tool” for reducing the sharp increases in energy prices.
On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order barring for one year the construction of "hyperscale" data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power or more, saying that unchecked expansion "threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers."
New York was the first state to place a moratorium on data center development, and more than a dozen other states have considered enacting moratoriums as evidence has mounted that data centers tend to spike power demand and drive up costs.
But as the rapid growth of data centers has sparked furious backlash in communities of all political stripes, the industry has maintained a steadfast ally in the Trump administration, which has continued to champion rapid data center buildout by fast-tracking permits, opening federal land to developers, promoting new energy infrastructure, and offering federal financing and tax incentives to new projects.
On Wednesday morning, Wright took to Fox News to blast Hochul's block on data center development.
"Gov. Hochul has it exactly backward," he said. "Data centers are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices and ultimately to bring them back down."
Wright, a former fracking executive, protested that “Democrat green energy policies” were responsible for driving up energy prices in New York, pointing to its ban on fracking, the blocking of a major natural gas pipeline, and an “insane climate law” requiring the state to transition away from fossil fuels by 2040.
"Energy is extremely expensive in New York and now sparse because of bad Democrat policies," he said. "Nothing to do with data centers."
Wright did not elaborate on how exactly data centers could be used as a "tool" to bring down energy prices. But if this is the case, nobody has informed the energy companies themselves.
His comments came just a day after PJM, which serves 67 million customers and is the nation's largest electric grid operator, released the results of an electricity auction that added $6.3 billion in costs to consumers' energy bills in 2028-29 due to growth in energy demand.
"The primary driver of that growth is data centers," the company said in a press release. "New data center facilities and expansions of existing sites can be developed quickly, up to two to three times faster than many of the electricity generation technologies that are necessary to serve them and allow PJM to maintain the reliability customers expect."
That increase is not confined to the future. It has already begun. According to Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, since 2024, the auctions have added $29 billion in costs to the customers across the 13 states plus Washington, DC, where it operates. New York is not one of the states supplied by the PJM grid.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has found that recent PJM auction increases have added as much as $20-30 to monthly bills in some parts of the company's regions, and projects that continued data-center growth could eventually add roughly $70 per month for an average household.
The labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union, which has published many pieces documenting the effects of data centers on American communities, called Wright's claim "one of the most blatant lies we’ve ever heard."
"Data centers are pushing energy prices up," the outlet said. "That is not a matter of debate, it’s a fact."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's Renewed Assault on Iran Means More Pain Incoming for Working Families, Experts Warn
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," said US Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
Jul 14, 2026
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent oil prices back upward, and experts are warning that means more economic pain for working families in the coming months.
The price of Brent crude, which had fallen under $71 per barrel in late June after the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to wind down the conflict, has since surged back above $85 per barrel as of Tuesday, days after Trump declared the ceasefire between the two countries to be over.
Rising oil costs mean that the price of gasoline, which has similarly been dropping over the last month, will again start to rise. Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday projected that, based on the current surge in oil prices, the US is "days away" from seeing the average price of gas go back over $4 per gallon.
The renewed hostilities with Iran came amid signs of inflationary pressures in the US easing. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Tuesday showed consumer prices in June rose by less than expected, with lower energy prices delivering relief.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that while Tuesday's inflation data was positive news, the recent fighting between the US and Iran means it could be short-lived.
"Inflation remains high, is well above the Fed's target, and the ceasefire with Iran is over," Wolfers cautioned, referring to the Federal Reserve.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said the resumption of the illegal war would "continue hammering Americans’ budgets at home."
"Gas prices have already started to rise again and last month’s inflation data is stale," said Jacquez. "Trump’s debacle in the Middle East will have lasting, layered effects on our economy for months to come. Working families struggling to make ends meet should lay blame squarely on the president."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said the latest consumer price data show "it's still tough for middle-class and moderate-income Americans," as "inflation is wiping out wage gains for many."
More ominously, Long added, "The question is whether this relief is only temporary as the war in Iran restarts."
Project management professional Larry Boorstein warned Trump against spiking the football over the relatively tame inflation data from last month.
"Prices are down because oil prices dropped after the US-Iran MOU," Boorstein wrote. "Prices for food, both at home and away from home, increased, as did prices for shelter. Energy prices fell enough to more than offset increases in food and shelter prices. What's not so good is Trump declared the MOU dead July 8. Oil prices are ticking up again."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put the economic damage caused by the Iran war into perspective by noting that it has cost US consumers over $56 billion so far in the form of higher gas prices, or just under $500 per household.
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," wrote Lofgren.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'No One Is Above the Law': 12 States Sue to Block Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
"With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "America has no kings in government or our economy.”
Jul 13, 2026
In filing an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance over its proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, 12 state attorneys general on Monday deployed a legal tactic successfully used in 2022 to block another megamerger pushed by book publisher Simon & Schuster.
States including California, New York, Colorado, and Washington argued in the lawsuit that should the merger be approved, just one massive corporation would control more than 30% of anticipated top-grossing blockbuster films with large budgets and audiences, while just four distributors—Paramount, Disney, Universal, and Sony—would control more than 90% of those films.
In 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) argued successfully that Simon & Schuster's proposed acquisition of Penguin Random House would harm competition among book publishers as they vied for the rights to books anticipated to be bestsellers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of states in the biggest legal challenge against the merger thus far, said that "the unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the US."
The lawsuit also argues that after the proposed merger, just three distribution companies would control 75% of wide-release theatrical films and 27% of the market in licensing for basic cable television channels.
The merger, said the attorneys general in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which bars business mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly.
"In this country, no one is above the law," said Bonta. "With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy.”
New York Mayor Zohran Mamadani expressed pride that his state was fighting the deal, which he said "is not a merger that serves the public."
The media advocacy group Free Press emphasized that along with reducing competition among film distribution companies, the merger would create a "media colossus" that would also include control over CBS—taken over by Skydance Media CEO David Ellison last year after his company merged with Paramount—and CNN.
The merger would give tech mogul Larry Ellison and his family—allies of President Donald Trump's administration—"the power to shape public discourse at the president’s direction in exchange for the administration’s regulatory approval," said Free Press. "That’s why administration officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have openly rooted for the Ellisons to obtain CNN, based on their documented promises to make 'sweeping changes' to the network to please Trump."
Following the Ellisons' takeover of CBS, the leadership of newly appointed right-wing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has been condemned by First Amendment advocates as Weiss has sought to remake CBS News—spiking a "60 Minutes" segment on Trump's mass deportations and firing the leadership of the flagship investigative news show.
“President Trump and his cronies want to rush this anti-competitive deal through because David Ellison has demonstrated time and again that he will leverage his control of his media empire to silence Trump’s critics and amplify MAGA propaganda," said Free Press co-CEO Jessica González, thanking the state attorneys general for their legal challenge. "That’s corruption, plain and simple. Any merger of this scale would diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists’ ability to hold those in power accountable, and further endanger our democracy."
"This is especially true when the Ellisons are in charge," said González. "To win approval for their takeover of CBS News, the Ellisons promised to gut hard-hitting reporting across the network—and have gleefully followed through. And they’ll do the same to undermine editorial independence at CNN if they gain control of the global news network."
Although Paramount's proposed merger has already been approved by 20 countries and regions globally, and Trump's DOJ claimed the creation of an even larger media empire was "not likely to harm competition or American consumer,” regulators in the United Kingdom and the European Union have leaned toward looking more closely at the deal. The lawsuit, said González, "means that this corrupt merger is far from a done deal."
"While the administration won’t take a stand against the president’s billionaire cronies, we can still stop the Ellisons’ power grab," said González. "While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and toasting Trump officials, we’re standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries—and with the American people, who deserve a diverse and independent media system that works on their behalf, and against the self-interest of greedy billionaires and unethical politicians.”
The lawsuit also followed a series of town halls held in Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta by the American Economic Liberties Project, titled "Main Street vs. the Merger." Anti-monopoly advocates heard from entertainment workers, small business owners, and others who would be impacted by the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal.
Comedian Adam Conover warned at one town hall that the merger would lead to higher streaming prices, and writers and other media workers shared fears that the deal would lead to mass layoffs.
"I spent the last month meeting with the workers and business owners who’d be hit with this deal,” said Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at American Economic Liberties Project, on Monday. “The rich guys who run Paramount can say what they want, but the people who actually work for them know that this will kill jobs and screw over the small businesses that are the lifeblood of this industry. I hope the states win and win fast, because these people need it.”
Lawsuits challenging mergers typically take at least several months and up to a year to be decided by a judge, and the states are asking the companies to freeze the proposed merger deal—which was set to close in the third quarter of 2026—which the case is being adjudicated. California also said it would seek a temporary restraining order if the companies did not agree to pause the deal.
Paramount has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders $650 million for each quarter the deal isn't finalized, starting in October.
“This illegal merger would mean layoffs for artists and workers, higher prices for consumers, and the death of Hollywood,” said Matt Stoller, research director at American Economic Liberties Project. “State enforcers have done the right thing in seeking to block it. It is time to stop oligarchs from strip-mining our culture and selling America off for parts. Blocking this megamerger is the first step in doing so.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
A Year After Trump Package, Report Shows Rich 'Got a Handout, and Working Families Got the Bill'
"I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said one Pennsylvania state lawmaker.
Jul 10, 2026
Last week marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump signing H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
But a new report from the progressive advocacy group Defend America Action, obtained exclusively by Common Dreams, demonstrates that while the bill has indeed been beautiful for the richest households, it has been anything but for working-class Americans.
"Republicans sacrificed the American people's financial future, healthcare, and food security to pay for massive tax breaks for big corporations and the ultrawealthy," the report said. "The richest people on the planet got a handout, and working families got the bill."
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the richest 1% of Americans will see $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, an average windfall of roughly $66,000 each and more than the entire bottom 60% will receive combined.
At the same time, the law contained the largest cuts to federal healthcare funding in US history, slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next decade.
The report found that as of March 2026, less than a year after the bill passed, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had already fallen by 3.8 million.
And after Republicans allowed ACA marketplace subsidies to expire, insurance premiums are projected to increase 114% on average, leading one in five enrollees—over 4.2 million people—to drop their coverage entirely.
Additionally, 11 million low-income Americans no longer receive zero-dollar premiums through the marketplace, while deductibles rose an average of 37% for those buying insurance on their own.
In total, more than 8 million people are estimated to have lost insurance coverage due to cuts to these programs, according to Protect Our Care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that as many as 15 million could lose insurance by 2034 as a result of the law and other policy changes over the next decade.
US Rep. Dina Titus (D) said that the cuts have hit her state of Nevada especially hard, as many people work in the service industry and don't receive employer-sponsored insurance.
"An estimated 100,000 Nevadans are impacted by this, [could be] kicked off Medicaid, including 22,000 just in my one congressional district, and it's children, it's seniors, and it's people with disabilities who are going to be impacted so directly."
"The failure to continue the [ACA] tax credits... has knocked more people off," she said. "Then people who do have it pay higher rates to cover that. So it doesn't just impact the people who are on Obamacare. It impacts everybody."
According to an analysis by Protect Our Care, more than 1,000 hospitals, nursing homes, maternity wards, and other critical care facilities around the country have either shut down, are at risk of closing, or have cut essential services since the law went into place.
"In my more than 25 years as a practicing physician and now a legislator for the last four years, I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), an emergency physician who represents the suburbs outside Pittsburgh.
"There are a number of hospitals in Pennsylvania that have closed or are under threat to close as a result of the devastation that's being caused by this legislation," he said.
After $187 billion was cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more than 4 million low-income people—10 % of enrollees—no longer receive food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Millions more are expected to also lose benefits as stringent new work requirements go into effect. This includes 3 million people aged 18-24, according to a report from the Urban Institute, which noted that young adults often have greater difficulty finding stable jobs that allow them to meet the work requirements.
An analysis from ProPublica last month found that across just 12 states that break down data based on age, at least 776,000 children are no longer appearing on SNAP rolls.
"I think when we're talking about SNAP, we should start from the fact that the average benefit per person is [less than] $3 per meal," said Jared Bernstein, who served as the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.
"Nobody's getting rich off of SNAP," he said. "What's happening is people, including a lot of children, are getting fed."
"There's a long line of careful research showing long-term benefits for not just the beneficiaries themselves, but for the broader society," he said, noting that receiving benefits early in life is associated with "better academic performance, long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency."
The report from Defend America Action also said the Trump budget law squashed "an unprecedented American clean energy and manufacturing boom" that began during the Biden years, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The law eliminated clean energy tax credits and led hundreds of projects to be canceled. Citing an analysis by Climate Power, the report said that over 140,000 clean energy jobs have been lost, are at risk, or have been delayed due to H.R. 1, stemming from 382 canceled or delayed projects that represented $69 billion in investment.
This has also contributed to the $92 billion spike in energy bills since Trump took office, the report said. Those canceled projects could have powered more than 17 million homes.
The law also killed the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, which has locked consumers into driving gas-powered cars that cost more to power, especially as Trump's war with Iran has sent gas prices soaring.
Bernstein noted that EV sales "fell off a cliff" after the tax credits were canceled.
"I can't begin to describe how shortsighted this is," he said. "Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of the US ever having a chance to capture market share in what I believe already is a do-or-die product development for the auto sector."
He noted that the US abandonment of clean energy, even as its use grows worldwide, has led China to dominate the market.
"This isn't China just eating our lunch," Bernstein said. "This is us serving our lunch to them."
Defend America Action's report notes that at the time of its passage, H.R. 1 was the most unpopular piece of legislation to pass through Congress since at least 1990, with just 31% approving and 55% disapproving, according to an average of four major polls.
Just months before the midterm elections, the bill remains equally unpopular, with only 33% of Americans saying they favor it and 48% opposing it, according to a recent survey by Navigator Research.
Titus told Common Dreams that one year ago, her colleagues in the GOP were very excited to pass H.R. 1.
Now, she said, "They don't really talk about it."
"They always are up for cutting programs," Titus said. "They call it fraud, waste, and abuse, but it's not. It's benefits that people needed."
"I think as you get closer to the election, there will be more concern about it," Titus said. "You know they cleverly made some of these cuts not go into effect until after the election, so they had to have been aware that they weren't very popular."
"I think we need to get the message out as much and as often as we can," she said, "and that's been kind of focused on affordability because all these different programs that we mentioned tie together."
"It's not just one little hit," Titus said. "It's across-the-board hits."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Sign the Damn Bill!' Anger at Trump Grows as US Housing Prices Hit All-Time High
US Sen. Amy Klouchar said that the housing bill has "been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough."
Jul 09, 2026
With President Donald Trump still refusing to sign bipartisan legislation aimed at lowering the cost of housing, fresh outrage erupted Thursday as new data shows buying a home in the US has never been more expensive.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) on Thursday released its monthly report on home sales showing that the median sales price of existing homes grew to $440,600, a record high.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR, said that housing supply remains a major barrier to making owning a home more affordable.
"Progress on long-term housing affordability could be hampered if inventory growth continues to stall," said Yun. "Without consistent gains in inventory, home prices can accelerate. It is critical to introduce more supply to the market to widen the opportunity for homeownership."
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the US Congress last month, was designed specifically to address the housing shortage in the US.
Among other things, the bill prohibits large Wall Street investors from buying up new single-family homes, streamlines environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and creates a $200 million annual competitive grant program to benefit communities that have demonstrated success in expanding their housing supplies.
Trump, however, refused to sign the legislation, insisting that it be paired with the SAVE America Act, a voter suppression bill that will curb ballot access but Republicans in Congress do not currently have enough power to pass.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who co-wrote the housing bill alongside Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), took to social media on Thursday and pointed to a poll showing that the legislation has overwhelming support throughout the country.
"The American people have a message for President Trump," Warren wrote. "Sign the damn bill."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also took a shot at the president for dragging his feet on the legislation.
"Over two weeks ago, Congress passed the ROAD to Housing Act with overwhelming bipartisan support," Klobuchar wrote. "It will pave the way for more housing, make it easier to build, and help more Americans find a place to call home. It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill."
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), currently a candidate for the US Senate running in New Hampshire, urged Trump to finally take action.
"It's never been more expensive to buy a home," wrote Pappas. "I helped pass a bipartisan housing bill to bring down home prices, and I'm calling on the President to get it over the finish line."
Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran has also not helped the housing affordability crisis, as it has led to an inflation spike that has left the Federal Reserve with little room to lower interest rates without risking further price acceleration.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Who Are the Biggest AI Villains? An Industry Watchdog Has Made a List
"The federal government shares the tech industry’s vision for AI to be embedded everywhere, displacing human thought and labor, and deepening the strains on the environment and climate."
Jul 09, 2026
With backlash against the artificial intelligence industry growing throughout the US, one government watchdog has created a database to help keep tabs on the people it describes as the biggest "AI villains."
The Revolving Door Project on Thursday launched a webpage that tracks the actions of major players in the AI industry and their ties to President Donald Trump's administration.
"The Trump administration is all in on artificial intelligence," the Revolving Door Project explained. "The federal government shares the tech industry’s vision for AI to be embedded everywhere, displacing human thought and labor, and deepening the strains on the environment and climate."
The watchdog added that the government is pursuing an "AI first" policy "despite little proof that its value for the American public is anywhere close to commensurate with its costs."
While there are several well known names on the Revolving Door Project's list—including SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison—it also shines a light on more obscure figures including Chris Lehane, director of government affairs at OpenAI, and Greg Brockman, president of OpenAI.
Lehane is notable due to his long connections to Democratic Party politics, including a stint as a special assistant counsel in the Clinton administration and work as deputy campaign manager for former Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. Since then, he has mostly done public relations work for Silicon Valley firms, including Airbnb and Coinbase.
According to The Revolving Door Project, Lehane during the second Trump administration has been a big proponent of an AI regulatory framework that he describes as "reverse federalism" that aims to shut down individual states' powers to put guardrails on the industry.
Brockman, meanwhile, is much more traditionally aligned with the GOP, as he and his wife were the largest donors to the MAGA, Inc. super PAC in 2025, and he is described by the watchdog as "a regular attendee at White House events throughout Trump’s second term."
This coziness has helped Brockman push for policies beneficial to the AI industry such as fast-tracking data center construction and the aforementioned "reverse federalism" regulatory framework.
The Revolving Door Project also pays special attention to Marc Andreesen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), whose allies the watchdog describes as "deeply entrenched" in the Trump administration.
Among the Andreesen acolytes to have worked in the Trump are Sriram Krishnan, a former general partner at a16z who served as a senior AI policy advisor; Peter Bowman-Davis, former engineering fellow at a16z who served as acting chief AI officer at the Department of Health and Human Services; and Scott Kupor, former managing partner at a16z who serves as director of the Office of Personnel Management.
Andreesen himself serves as a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which the Revolving Door Project describes as a "vessel... to freely lobby on behalf of the tech industry’s interests without the need for lobbyist intermediaries—especially at meetings with the president and his closest advisors."
In a newsletter explaining the purpose of the tracker, the Revolving Door Project's Fletcher Calcagno wrote that it was needed to help understand why the Trump administration so far has been willing to "accept Big Tech’s maximally irresponsible recommendations" for AI regulation.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Lots of Pain But Little Gains': Report Shows How Much Trump Tariffs Have Cost Americans
The head of the group behind the analysis called the report "a damning indictment of tariffs’ impact on the US economy."
Jul 09, 2026
A US small business coalition on Wednesday released a state-by-state analysis detailing how President Donald Trump's capricious tariffs have cost American businesses and consumers upward of $317 billion since March 2025.
We Pay the Tariffs launched an interactive map, which uses data compiled by the international research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC to show the costs from additional tariffs the Trump administration has imposed by illegally invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a move blocked by the US Supreme Court in February—and by using Sections 122, 232, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
With Section 122 tariffs—which impose a 10% surcharge on imports from almost all countries—set to expire on July 24, the Trump administration has said it will replace them with permanent Section 301 tariffs, which, according to We Pay the Tariffs will add "new costs on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars businesses have already paid."
"The latest figures are a damning indictment of tariffs’ impact on the US economy, with lots of pain but little gains for American workers, businesses, and families," We Pay the Tariffs executive director Dan Anthony said on Wednesday. "The trade deficit is up, goods exports and manufacturing jobs are down, and inflation is at its highest level in years. It’s disappointing that the administration is barreling ahead with a flurry of new tariffs despite the results to date."
In an open letter to members of Congress signed by small businesses across the country, the coalition noted that "once new tariffs take effect, history shows they are rarely undone."
"The Section 301 statute says tariffs should terminate after four years. Yet Section 301 tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration in 2018 were continued by the Biden administration, and remain in effect today," the letter states. "So do many Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2018 and expanded upon in 2025. There is no reason to expect this pattern to change."
The coalition argued that this is why "Congress must act before more Section 301 and 232 tariffs take effect."
"This is not a partisan issue. Tariffs are deeply and broadly unpopular with American voters," the letter asserts. "They are hurting small businesses in every state. Tariffs are taxes, and no president should be able to unilaterally impose hundreds of billions in permanent new taxes without a vote of Congress."
Progressive economists and consumer advocates argue that tariffs function as a regressive tax, falling disproportionately on working-class families who spend a larger share of their income on consumer goods. They warn that Trump administration tariff policies have also aided large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors.
Critics also note that the tariffs have failed to deliver the manufacturing renaissance promised by Trump, noting that the sector has still shed tens of thousands of jobs even as output increases due to automation, and that workers have seen few benefits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional import taxes paid by businesses and consumers.
"We paid—and will be forced to keep paying—the tariffs," the coalition letter concludes. "We need Congress to act now, before a permanent tariff regime is imposed on small businesses across America."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy